…that led to the complete evisceration of the US working class’ capacity to contribute political leadership, and thus stripped the US of capacity for public good, and stripped the nation from the state. This dismantling of US social and state capacity resulted in the triumph of charismatic-front direct capitalist rule in the US.
1) No political party organized labour, or built working class collective action capacity across the US
By contrast, the Social Democratic Party (SAP) in Sweden methodically propelled itself to political hegemony by first and foremost working to build unions, a labour movement, and thus working-class leadership capacity in Sweden.
In 1930s Minnesota, the Farmer-Labour party had similarly worked with organized and state management radicals to build worker collective action capacity, including with anti-racism programs, and power resources; but on altruistic behalf of anti-fascist solidarity, the national Democratic Party took over and dismantled the Farmer-Laborers in WWII.
While this strategy eventually provided Humphrey, Mondale and Freeman the political force to oust the controlling Southern slaver Democrats from the Democrat Party–to the benefit of the Republicans, and so permitted liberals to use the Democrat Party to help leftists reduce some of the apartheid features of US society at the tail end of the financial regulation era, the victory was pyrrhic. The deregulation of finance was soon to undercut desegregation by restoring its traditional partners, inegalitarianism and Herrenvolk democracy, inequality and economic scarcity, and labor import substitution.
Why is this pivotal? Where the Swedish Social Democrats built working class cohesion and collective action capacity, and a strategic radical organized edge to “moderate,” state repression of communists shut down the working class’ capacity to organize, institutionalize, and coordinate external-internal (social movement-polity organization) strategy, preventing labor autonomy, cohesion & collective action capacity, and working class power resources development in the US.
In comparison, in Canada, during WWII when the Atlantic ruling class required labor cooperation but Canada did not have strong policing capacity, the state prioritized targeting and imprisoning (especially labor-organizing) communists, while developing legislation to channel wildcat strike labor eruptions under liberal, labor-policing, professional, bureaucratic unions.
Because policy tends to be shared and it is well known that significant resources were devoted to repressing communists in the Atlantic ruling class’ nation-states, evidence from Canada supports Kolin’s (2017) historical research conclusion, suggesting that under historical conditions more favorable to the establishment of labor power resources, the US shared and pursued the communist repression priority as the keystone in the Atlantic ruling class’ broader labor-repression strategy. Without communist organizers, the American working class could not build an effective inside-outside strategy capable of supporting labor political capacity to advance the public good.
Against the capitalist hegemony that only states and labor cause economic decline, no ideas, laws, policies, or institutions capable of moderating and directing capital for the public good, could sustainably develop in the US capable of countering both regional and international, exclusive capitalist strategy. This has produced a US that is a global capitalist playground headquarters.
2) Instead, professionalized policing targets, represses labor collective action capacity in the US
In addition to the communist repression priority as the keystone in its broader labor-repression strategy, the US and its capitalist class had built up and continued to amass strong, cyborg public and private policing capacity with which to repress labor and prevent the development of working-class power resources. The US was able to further minimize class compromise, minimizing the development of robust labor rights law and labor-policing unions. The combination of exclusive union representation, mandatory agency fees, no-strike clauses, and “Management Rights” TM were until 2018 the foundation of (the peculiar and now dismissed) American labor laws.
Bereft of an organized radical edge, professional organized labour, as structured by Anglo-American law, mainly served to police its own members, forbidding and punishing collective action and strikes.
In the latter 20th century, after the global capitalist mid-century demonstration of finance’s power (coordinating capital and enforcing inflation until US politicians submitted), Democrats as well as Republicans devoted their efforts to policing and cutting down vestigal unions and labour cohesion and communication capacity.
Why is this pivotal? Deeply-crippled working classes made the US (and UK) a beacon for global capitalist investment support, the basis of the “Trickle Down” claim that exclusive elite liberty and rule can contribute to the larger “club society” (Therborn 2017) economic welfare.
Obviously, while the US (and UK) rose to global prominence on the backs of slavery, colonial genocide, and other forms of terror visited upon working class and smallholding peoples, there is a profound, venerable debate over the value of Herrenvolk democracy (Losurdo 2011), as it broadly cripples human development while attracting resources distributed to reinforce economic, political and social inequality and ecological entropy (climate crisis). At best, Herrenvolk democracy broadly fosters lotto-mentality dispositions that occasionally throw up anti-social, risk-affine fresh recruits to the benefit of ruling class reproduction, and, in the conservatized-liberal Hobbesian spirit, it manufactures exclusive, strong militarized state capacity, and in that sense, a protection racket worthy of Great Apes.
At its normal worst, Herrenvolk democracy facilitates socially-irrational growth by allowing unregulated finance to endlessly manufacture overlapping claims on the existing asset world as well as future, production and sales-backed wealth–overlapping claims that incentivize and organize societies to more and more belligerent, terrified, socially-irrational, ecologically-irrational expropriation and speculation–economic growth as cancer, when what is economically needed is the democratic redistribution of wealth.
3) Anti-communist campaigns left a flaccid, rudderless, unsustainable liberalism
Why is this pivotal? The US was incapable of sustainably governing global economy as a democratic country because (see Geoff Mann, 2017, In the long run we are all dead) liberal leadership only fleetingly, unseriously entertained the notion that capitalists need moderation, which requires strategic labor capacity and power resources. Communists would have been needed to maintain such a counter-hegemonic vision, to coordinate a robust, complex labor organization structure including both multiple levels of institutionalized, multi-dimensional power resources (in unions, union federations, and the state), sovereign leadership capacity, and agile disruption and collective action capacity.
While it arose with a spectacular democratic revolution, the US collapsed into a frail, senile liberalism requiring extensive conservative buttressing and a humiliating return to slavery ideology and institutions, which the media, the police institutions, the carceral institutions, the militaries, elite US academia, and the US judiciary and its conservative constitutional law supply to the global Nightwatchman state that has replaced the nation-state.
4) 1955-1963 the UK deregulated financial speculation, enabling currency speculation on the dollar. The US state did not shut the deregulation down.
The UK deregulates finance, breaks US state-US capitalist alignment
Why is this pivotal? Because the US’s global job, per Bretton Woods & the Marshall Plan, was to direct capital into productive activities, economic growth. This required, inter alia, repressing global finance’s capacity to coordinate and direct capital. In this, Keynesian economic theory tentatively broke with the conservative economics tradition. Keynesianism in its boldest hour assumed distinctively that not just states, and not just labour, but capital can cause economic problems and crisis, especially since (per Smith 1776) it is not only concentrated power, but also privileged by the state (chartered, protected by law and police, and championed by imperial militaries) to be uniquely capable of exclusive class cohesion and collective-action capacity  — capitalist attributes that are standardly denied in agency-free, naturalizing, technocratic accounts of the neoliberalization era.
All the other countries stuck with the international plan for distributed growth. But Keynesians were elitists; ultimately, their fear and loathing of the working class crushed their innovative but wavering resolve to moderate capitalist power (Mann 2017). When the UK subverted financial regulation from 1955-63, partly in order to maintain global financial supremacy in London, it cut the US state’s alignment with US capital, and ended the US state’s capacity to manage capital at all.
While the US had supported the UK’s financial deregulation as a way of removing war expenditure pressure on the dollar, US capital was immediately organized into an inflation crisis campaign taking advantage of the US’s inflation-vulnerable “strength” at the center of global capitalism: The dollar as the currency of exchange, and the US’s expensive, divisive assumption of the imperial warfare task.
Although ceteris paribus, cheapening money can reduce money lending returns in favor of borrowers, ceteris was not paribus. After decades of state regulation of finance, state deregulation of finance allowed finance to gain the global system-regulating upperhand as the quantity of global money flowed into the banks, offsetting the decline of individual units of money, concentrating and coordinating capital.
Sponsored conservative economists were loosed to develop marketing narratives and policy intervention models again based on the Atlantic ruling class (Van Der Pijl 2012) belief that only states and labor hurt the economy (Blyth 2002). A fearful, chastened liberalism shrivelled and crawled back into the womb of conservatism.
5) In the early 1970s, after Nixon’s corporatist pricing board demonstrated that capital could stabilize prices, capitalists, coordinated by finance, refused to do it voluntarily.
Boss Battle: You’ll have your inflation & you’ll eat it too
Despite emerging from and influenced by (assuming) an era of state semi-autonomy, Nixon was an ideological pro-capitalist. When cosmopolitan capital stopped cooperating with the US state, Nixon shrugged. Why is this pivotal? With no one identifying capitalists as the agent of inflation requiring state intervention, US capitalists collectively jacked up commodity prices as Saudi Arabia (Britain’s long time satellite.) led OPEC to jack up oil prices, creating a heightened inflation crisis and hysteria throughout the US. With the help of conservative economists as marketeers, capitalists maintained that this inflation was the sole fault of the US state and American labour, meaning that American labour would have to be completely repressed and the US state–the state’s institutionalizing, coordinating, legal and police coercion, and resource distribution capacity–would have to be completely captured by global capitalists. Central banks were restored to capitalist class-action institutions embedded in every state, dedicated to repressing labour (Martin 2019 reviewing Kynaston 2017).
Liberalism and its Rule of Law ideal (“Judicial Activism,” it was then-derided by conservative jurists and comms pros) were left desanguinated corpses in the US, though the state’s institutions were still embedded with and surrounded by armies of liberal lawyers and bureaucrats. The next steps toward speculative-claims overlap and asset expropriation as growth would be the conservatization of those managerial forces into a comprador bourgeoisie and working class police force; the expansion of marketing, surveillance technology, and militarization; the denunionization and the demeaning of the US working class; and the expansion and attenuation of citizenship in the import substitution of a new, disrupted, dislocated, traumatized, incarcerated, and un-enfranchised labor force.
6) From Nixon on, US state efforts to use policy and institution building to mediate capitalist interests with societal interests (OSHA, the EPA, a Fed independent of Wall Street, state responsibility for directing new economic sector development, etc.) were killed or occupied directly by unfriendly capitalists.
Charismatic Reagan was propelled into the front of the Executive to host the Republican restoration of direct capitalist rule over US institutions.
The Dem Party’s only response, from the liberal repertoire, was to sell itself as a “Credible” organization that could more conveniently (than direct rule with charismatic fronts) be delegated the management of capitalist interests  –in other words, a , meritocratic rentier political class. From the conservative (Public Choice) repertoire, the Dems could extract rents for this convenience service and the reassuring, resonant professionalism they performed for international audiences in capitalist countries with semi-independent professional states and remnant liberal institutions. But the neoliberal Dems’ convenient, performative professionalism has offered no value-added for working class Americans–on the contrary, even contributing and managing policies to disorganize and police the American working class, and usually, precious little value-added for regional and global capitalists.
Why is this pivotal? Blanket-policed by their employers, professional unions, political parties, and the police, American labour rapidly realized that they had no collective action capacity and no institutional power, not even in the state. Further, culturally, intellectually, labour would only be conceptualized as an economic problem to be targeted. Without any labour power resources in the US, US and global capitalists were liberated to absolutely, directly run the country (with the currency and the military) at the center of global capitalism.
If not permitted the full range of human collective capacity, American smallholders and working class people were allowed to work ethnic, racial, religious, and gender identity networks. They could align with the Credible Delegates Party or they could align with the Charismatic Direct Capitalist Rule Party. As time, repression, and inequality marched on, it became evident that it didn’t matter. Working class Americans and smallholders would get nothing—padded with crippling law and policing, economic disruption, precarious exploitation, debt, criminalization, incarceration, disenfranchisement, pollution, alienation, racialization, sexual assault, shame, and contempt. The US mass “consumer” class was being expropriated, and though many of the workers’ pensions were caught up in generationally gaming the class expropriation, unregulated finance was the ringmaster.
Charismatic Direct Capitalist Rule in the US
Trump, as a charismatic capitalist ruler, offers a wink, a little reality teevee strum und drang, a little business shock ‘n’ awe, a little commedia dell’arte to symbolically lighten the inescapable burdens carried by hundreds of millions of Americans, workers and their guards, managers, and owners. Along with impotent and often enslaved labour, they still have guarding, policing, and incarceration economic opportunities (Bowles & Jayadev 2005; M.A. Pidgeon & L.R. Wray, 2000; ); military national socialism (Mittelstadt 2015); declining access to beautiful public lands (Turkewitz 2019), lovely climates, city amenities (Florida 2019), and remnant infrastructure; and more, slightly higher- quality commodity goods than much of the world. It could be worse, and it’s palpably getting worse. When the shovels scrape too much rock, capitalists are turning on each other, and they’re taking everyone down with them.
 Blyth 2002, Chapter 4. From Blyth, Mark. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge.
 Delton, Jennifer. Making Minnesota Liberal.
 Glasbeek 2017.
 Murakawa 2015, etc.
 Kolin, Andrew. 2017. Political economy of labour repression in the United States. Lexington Books.
 Schenk, Catherine R. 1998. “The Origins of the Eurodollar Market in London: 1955-1963.” Explorations in Economic History 35: 221-238.
 Per Smith 1776.
 Blyth 2002: 135-6
 Blyth 2002, Ch. 5; Also, insert finance-coordinated capital assumption to modify central banking history narrative presented in Martin, Jamie. 2019. “A company of merchants: Review of Kynaston 2017.” London Review of Books 41(2): 35-37.
 Blyth 2002, Ch. 6.
 Blyth 2002.
 As observed in Gilens & Page 2014.